Template talk:Battle
Box contents Example of similar box at wikipedia - significant difference combatants/belligerents: wikipedia: Battle of Jutland--dotz 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC) May be there should be present belligerent states (with its flags) as well as tactical entities engaged in the battle (Fleet, TF, TG etc)?--dotz 10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :Tactical entities would be good if available, as sometimes they are referenced instead of sheer numbers/tonnage. I also like the bit they have at the end in Wikipedia, the "other battles in this confict" section, a template in itself Jabrwock 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Strength/Losses Numbers should be crunched down to their absolute minimum possible, in order to keep it simple. Order of Battle can provide more details on organization, types, names, etc. IE for HMAMC Wayfarer, Strength would be "1 Q-Ship". If numbers are not known, fleet/group names can be substituted (see Battle of Manticore), but actual numbers is preferred. Jabrwock 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC) AMC and Q-ship :(just small clarification) Wayfarer was AMC, Q-ship was desgined to be a warship, not refited(eg. Sirius)--dotz 13:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ::Was the distinction made in the books? At times she was designated "HMS", at others "HMAMC". I'll have to look up the relevant passages to see how the Admiralty described the converted ships. Jabrwock 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC) :::Distinction was at least in Polish translation of HH6 probably (when Wayfarer was in the shipyard probably). However damm Mr Polish Translator describes in Jayne's Astra-class (Sirius) as wikipedia:Armed Merchant Cruiser, geez. I think the criterion should be primary design - military or non-military. Quite a problem could be with Pirate's Bane as refitted Vogel-class collier - I opt for AMC classification there (rather weak construction and non-military engine - it should be checked in HH10 of course). We can try to check real-world definitions also (eg. if in wikipedia are any - wikipedia:Q-ship, wikipedia:Merchant raider).--dotz 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Q-Ship: "heavily armed merchant ships with concealed weaponry, designed to lure submarines into making surface attacks" ::::AMC: "a merchant ship equipped with guns, usually for defensive purposes, either by design or after the fact" ::::Merchant Raider: "ships which disguise themselves as non-combatant merchant vessels, intending to attack enemy commerce" ::::Seeing that Wayfarer was refitted to explicitly conceal it's weaponry and "lure" pirates into approaching, rather than brandishing her weaponry to warn them off, I'd argue that by conventional definitions she's a Q-Ship, even if not initially designed as one. Did Pirate's Bane conceal her weaponry? Have to check HH10 to find out. There's also the idea of intent. PB was designed to be a merchant which happened to be armed (concealed or not). Wayfarer was designed to not carry any cargo at all, but instead be a decoy merchantman to sucker raiders (the fact that she was hulled as a merchie was just a design issue I'd argue). Jabrwock 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Small and non-definitive ad vocem * conventional definitions can be not adequate in the Honorverse * Pirate's Bane 's original Vogel-class platform was (lightly) armed collier, so it goes into discussive gray sphere trying use my initilal definition, wich is wrong, because... * according to HH1 Q-ship could be refitted one also (Astra-class freighter into Sirius), but on the other hand Trumbull-class Q-ship was originally designed platform.--dotz 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC) :HH6 has the Admiralty describing the Wayfarer as both a Q-Ship and an armed merchant cruiser/armed cruiser. I would suspect that the Honorverse definition of Q-Ship is based on the fact that whether from the initial design or not, a Q-Ship is a merchie only in shape. It does not carry any cargo. It is specifically a disguised armed cruiser. PB can be an AMC, because it is heavily armed, but it is not a Q-Ship because it is still first and foremost a cargo-carrying merchant ship. Q-Ships, by their nature of being designed/refit expressly to hunt pirates (or in the PN's case, raid commerce and assist in invasion), don't bother with carrying cargo, other than the deadly kind. ;) Jabrwock 14:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC) ::Good point.--dotz 15:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC) :::I checked HH1 ounce again and I am sorry to confess I started that disscussion basing on wrong data (ounce again misguided by "creative" polish translation). According to HH1 there are possible originally built Q-ships like Trumball-class as well as Q-ships based on massively refitted platforms, like Astra-class Q-ships (class name according to Jayne's) built on Astra-class freighters platform (that according to HH1, according to Jayne's it is originally bulit Q-ship mimicked to Astra-class freighter). So your Q/AMC distinction based on function is still wery well, but I think we should make some convention or article to show all scale of Q-ship/AMC type/meta-type as possible constructions, like: * originally designed Q-ships (Trumball) * Q-ships built on massively changed freighter platform (Astra?), massively I mean especially military engine, * ships built on armed collier platform (Pirates Bane of course, quite an event), * ships built on moderatley changed freighter platform (Wayfarer - AMC because HMAMC), * just armed merchantmen/slavers * armed passenger liners :::BTW Siruis was almost consequently called Q-ship, and the only exception was "armed merchant raider" term (not AMC).--dotz 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :Sounds good to me. I think we have enough varied data to create a Q-Ship/AMC/AMR page. Jabrwock 14:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC) The infodump includes a post about Q-ships that says that all Q-ships are AMCs but not all AMCs are Q-ships. The primary difference seems to be that Q-ships need to be able to disguise their weaponry and AMCs don't. Other than that the difference seems to be primarily what the ships do; the use of the ship versus the design. 17:02, August 1, 2011 (UTC) Date When exact date of battle is unknown may be book symbol sould be enough.--dotz 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC) : Good point. Or the time frame given at the beginning of each novel article. -- SaganamiFan 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Conflict template Since we use brackets to make a link of the conflict, it interferes with automatic attempts to insert a conflict template based on the conflict listed. Is there a way to strip out wiki code when using values in a template? Jabrwock 19:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) }}}